DINDIGUL PETTAI SATHANGUDI SHATRIYA NADAR URAVINMURAI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND THIRUMANGALAM PANDIAR KULA SHATRIYA NADAR URAVINMURAI THROUGH ITS MUTHALMURAIKARAR Vs. SELVARAJ SUNDAR AND ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit property, situated in Dindigul Town in 5th Ward, covered by R.C.O.P Proceedings belongs to the petitioners. It is stated that the second respondent was a tenant under them, who took the property on lease from them in the year 1964, agreeing to pay monthly rent and it was subsequently fixed at Rs. 170/ - p.m. from February 1986. Since he committed wilful default in payment of rent right from February 1986, the first and second respondents filed R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1990, on the file of the Rent Controller(Principal District Munsif court), Dindigul, for eviction. The said petition was strongly resisted by the second respondent by stating that the first and second respondents are not the owners of the property, but denied the title to the property by pleading that the property originally belonged to the State Government and he occupied the same in the year 1964, improved the property and running a business of making cement pipes, Cement Plates etc., and also by making construction thereon and a portion of which was also used by him for residential purpose. It is his further contention that he has been residing along with his family members in the property, running the business and that the Government has also issued "B -Memo" to him which would show that the property belongs to the Government. It is further stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant existing between them and that he has taken all steps to get a patta in his name. On the defence of denial of title, he opposes the eviction application.

(2.) ON the appreciation of oral and documentary piece of evidence, the learned Rent Controller accepted the claim of the third respondent and dismissed the Rent Control Application. The Petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in R.C.A. No. 2 of 2000 and the appeal was allowed by the appellate authority observing that the relationship of landlord and tenant is existing between the parties and that it is not correct on the part of the second respondent that the petitioners have no title over the property.

(3.) IT is the quintessence of the contention of the first respondent in his application that his father occupied the property as a vacant site in the year 1964 and he was enjoying the same by putting up pucca super structures and started a manufacturing unit dealing with cement tank, cement pipes etc., in the name and style of "Abraham Cement Works", which was levied with Penal Tax by the Government. It is further stated that there was some misunderstanding between the first respondent and his sister Premashanthi with regard to the allotment of family properties and in settlement reached among them, the schedule property was allotted to him by means of execution of an Undertaking Deed in favour of the petitioner on 24.08.1994. It is an unregistered document as per their contention and hence right from the year 1984, the first respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying Penal Tax and Professional Tax. It is his contention that from 1984 onwards, the second respondent was no longer the owner of the property, but he himself has been in possession and enjoyment.